- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 20 Sep '97

20 Sep '97

I am aware that certain sensitivities and frustrations are involved here, on all "sides". Please try to keep this in mind when reading what follows. If you find anything offensive, please consider that it may be due to simple clumsiness or ignorance on my part, rather than to antagonism or malice. There is an opportunity here to resolve, rather than to exacerbate problems. On 19 Sep 97 at 7:48, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:30:46 +0000 you [Niall O'Reilly] said: >>RIPE-27-TLD-5: >> - RIPE to nominate European candidate to iPOC seat. >> [?] > >As a former IAHC and iPOC member let me ask a few questions: It may help if I quote from the RIPE 27 TLD-BOF Minutes, item 10. For full text, please see www.ripe.net. - With regards to iPOC, IANA is sensitive about Europe being left out. IANA is looking for a European candidate to fill an iPOC seat. [...] There was unanimous agreement by the participants that RIPE should nominate a European candidate to fill an iPOC seat. This action item thus originates not in an attempt to impose a "European" agenda, but from what was understood as an invitation to become more involved. >a) How does one define what Europe is? >b) If you use the conventional definition of Europe, then why would not >Africa, North America, Asia and the Middle East each request a seat? >c) How do you then not make the process political - rather than functional? I think these are all aspects of the same question. I believe that the process is intrinsically -- certainly not exclusively -- political, and that the political dimension needs to be recognised rather than dismissed. The Internet has become a key element in the globalisation of commerce, and is therefore quite legitimately the object of attention for governments and trade organisations. As you suggest, there are many ways of defining "Europe". One definition might be "those countries served by the RIPE-NCC". Another would certainly be "those countries whose interests are represented by the EU Commission"; by this I mean to include present and future EU member-states and candidate member-states. Many other definitions are possible, each with a particular validity. Whichever "Europe" we are talking about, that "Europe" -- indeed, each of those "Europes" -- needs to be sure of how its interests will be affected by what has grown from the IAHC proposals, and that those interests are adequately protected by the processes now being set up. Even at this stage, over a year after the beginning of the chain of events which led to the IAHC report, many of us are quite unsure whether what is flowing from this report represents a new hope for the management of domain names, or rather simply a cloning of the ".COM" domain, with all that that implies. When I say "many of us", I mean people with experience of the Internet or of government (rarely of both!), who have conscientiously tried to read and interpret the mountain of opinion which has been expressed on the subject. In my own case, I have had to stop at a certain point, after having begun to appreciate with sympathy the enormous effort which you, Hank and the other members of the IAHC have applied to the problem. I am still missing some fundamentals. From putting the questions to others, I understand I am far from alone. The following questions indicate the areas in which I would find more information helpful. What problems are understood to be addressed by the proposals made in the gTLD-MoU and associated documents ? To what extent are these problems expected to be solved by the new procedures ? Unless there are specific entrance criteria for registration in each of the new gTLD's, how will they not become mere clones of .COM ? Many stakeholders have since been identified who were not engaged in the IAHC process. It may be possible to convince some of these stakeholders, who today find a critical stance appropriate, to adopt instead one of support for the process, if only their confidence in the process can be built. Are those driving the process aware of this "marketing gap" ? Will they address it ? >d) Europe has 2 people currently sitting on iPOC: Geert Glas, appointed >by INTA (a lawyer) and Patrik Falstrom appointed by the IAB (a techie from >Tele2). How do these people *not* serve a *European* perspective? Here, Hank, I think you beg the question which you have just raised. The "Europe" which "has 2 people sitting on the iPOC" is that "Europe" (if any) to which these people are listening, and which they are keeping informed, and whose interests they are working to protect. I particularly avoid saying, "whose interests they represent", as I believe that if adequate protection is afforded actual representation may not need to be an issue. So far, this "Europe" is neither the "Europe of RIPE" nor the "Europe of the Commission". I think it would be really useful if you, Hank, or Geert Glas or Patrik Falstrom could join us in Amsterdam on Thursday. I realize that this may not be possible. I also realize that the engagement whose lack I keep decrying is a two-way process, and that I too ought perhaps have done more sooner to bring it about. >(Don't >forget the WIPO and ITU reps who live and work in Geneva who also sit >on the iPOC - and you get to a total of 4 resident Europeans currently >on the iPOC - a number way out of proportion to Europe's size) I really think this is a red herring. Residency is not the issue. >Regards, >Hank The same, and very sincerely. I have a feeling that we may be involved here in the beginning of what I have sometimes heard called "a violent agreement". Niall -------- Logged at Sat Sep 20 19:41:40 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

TLD-WG Draft TOR
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 19 Sep '97

19 Sep '97

RIPE TLD-WG -- Draft Terms of Reference (TOR) -- September 1997 Aim Of The WG The aim of the TLD-WG is to initiate and enhance coordination of nTLDs within the RIPE geographical area. This increased coordination should lead to increased stability, effectiveness and uniformity of procedures within top level domain environs. Coordination will be done by means of discussion, consensus building regarding action points, and the monitoring of any actions carried out. Who Can Participate In The WG? In accordance with RIPE principles the WG is open to all parties administering nTLDs or wide area IP networks within the RIPE area, and those who have an interest in such matters. There is no formal membership of RIPE or of the TLD-WG. Specifically it is desired that all RIPE area nTLD administrators actively participate in the WG. How To Participate In The WG The working group will communicate by means of an open mailing list <tld-wg at ripe.net>. This list is managed by majordomo at ripe.net. In addition the WG will physically meet three times a year at the RIPE meetings. These meetings will be open to all RIPE meeting attendees not just WG members. They will be chaired by the TLD-WG chair and minutes will be published on the RIPE NCC web site <http://www.ripe.net/>. NOTE: A list of RIPE area nTLDs can be found at Appendix A. Relationships With Key Organisations The WG needs to develop and/or maintain relationships with all key TLD related organisations. These include but are not limited to IANA, RIPE NCC, ITU, CORE, POC, PAB, and any pertinent governmental regulatory bodies. The exact form these relationships would take on are a discussion point for the WG. TLD Coordination Project Activity The WG should discuss, form, and direct a TLD coordination project. The location, size, and scope of the project is to be decided. The aims of this project would be to: - carry out the actions decided upon by the WG - act as a focus point for relational contacts - give regular updates of actions undertaken - give regular reports of developments in the TLD arena Policies Of The WG Here follows a framework of policies for the WG. Policy details can be found in the WG workplan. - To promote harmonization of registration policies and practices by publishing recommendations. - To give input to actions carried out by TLD coordination project. - To design a framework for physical representation of the WG to relevant organisations and at important TLD meetings. - To provide a forum for the sharing of experiences. - To promote the independence and stability of relevant organisations necessary to the stability of the root domain and of the DNS as a whole, and to look at ways to improve the present situation. - To clarify and harmonise RIPE area conflict settlement procedures. [End RIPE TLD-WG -- Draft Terms of Reference (TOR)] -------- Logged at Thu Sep 18 23:32:06 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 19 Sep '97

19 Sep '97

RIPE TLD-WG -- Action List, Status as of 18 September 1997 RIPE-27-TLD-1: - Niall O'Reilly, Willie Black, Lars-Johan Liman, Marcel Schneider to prepare terms of reference for new working group. [Draft ready. Thanks to Paul Ridley, who acted as r?dacteur.] RIPE-27-TLD-2 - Willie Black and Marcel Schneider to attend Brussels meeting 27 May. [?] RIPE-27-TLD-3: - Daniel Karrenberg to write IANA future structure paper. [?] RIPE-27-TLD-4: - Niall O'Reilly to arrange a TLD working group mailing list. [Done. Thanks to RIPE-NCC staff.] RIPE-27-TLD-5: - RIPE to nominate European candidate to iPOC seat. [?] [End] -------- Logged at Fri Sep 19 08:01:53 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

A Guide to European NICs
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 16 Sep '97

16 Sep '97

On 16 Sep 97 at 10:48, Mo Kerr wrote: >Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately Nick can't attend RIPE 28 in >Amsterdam as it is a closed session. Somebody's misinformed. I'm to chair the session. I can assure you it's not closed. Nick will be welcome, if it's convenient for him to come. Niall O'Reilly IE Domain Registry University College Dublin Computing Services -------- Logged at Thu Sep 18 23:31:56 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE 28 TLD-WG: Suggestions for Agenda
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 15 Sep '97

15 Sep '97

On 15 Sep 97 at 11:33, Christopher.WILKINSON at BXL.DG1 wrote: >I would suggest to add to the agenda : > >- assessment of the US DOC/NTIA enquiry > >- reply to IPOC enquiry regarding the composition and selection of POC and >the designation of new gTLDs. (published 13 September on the >gTLD-MOU site) I suggest we take the above as specific items under "gTLD issues". >- current status of the OECD report (to be discussed in TISP/ICCP >tomorrow.) Probably "Short News" is the item for this. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Tue Sep 16 13:23:51 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE 28 TLD-WG: Suggestions for Agenda
by schneider＠switch.ch 15 Sep '97

15 Sep '97

On Friday, 12 Sep 1997, Niall O'Reilly writes: Niall Everything OK what you suggest but the IANA should possibly be given more attention. How about IANA: authorization, funding and protection. Hope we will be able to have a first review of Daniel Karrenberg's proposal in this context. Ahem :). Marcel > I expect to announce a draft agenda for RIPE-28 TLD-WG > early next week. You may wish to let your suggestions > be known before that, or at least before the meeting begins. > I have the following skeleton in mind already. > 1. Administrivia, including: > 1.1 recognition of Scribe > 1.2 Agenda bashing > 2. Matters arising from RIPE 27 BOF meeting > 2.1 adoption of minutes > 2.2 review of action list > 3. Brief news > eg: IANA update, re-appearance of ES ... > 4. Review of ToR > 5. Review of Workplan > 6. Operational issues > 6.1 Internic TLD Escalation procedure > 7. nTLD issues: documentation, harmonisation ... > [note NetSearchers proposal] > 8. gTLD issues > 9. ... > Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Sep 15 11:42:25 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 1

RIPE 28 TLD-WG: Suggestions for Agenda
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 15 Sep '97

15 Sep '97

I expect to announce a draft agenda for RIPE-28 TLD-WG early next week. You may wish to let your suggestions be known before that, or at least before the meeting begins. I have the following skeleton in mind already. 1. Administrivia, including: 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 Agenda bashing 2. Matters arising from RIPE 27 BOF meeting 2.1 adoption of minutes 2.2 review of action list 3. Brief news eg: IANA update, re-appearance of ES ... 4. Review of ToR 5. Review of Workplan 6. Operational issues 6.1 Internic TLD Escalation procedure 7. nTLD issues: documentation, harmonisation ... [note NetSearchers proposal] 8. gTLD issues 9. ... Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Sep 15 11:10:41 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 1